On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:35 AM, Matthew Butterick <m...@mbtype.com> wrote:
> The docs say `eqv?` differs from `eq?` only for nmbers and characters. But > is this still true since numbers and characters became interned data types > in 2011? [1] > That mail thread is specifically about *literal* data being interned. > > If it were true I would've expected the docs to say so; OTOH the docs do > not provide an example of, say, a pair of numbers where today's `eqv?` and > `eq?` in fact give different results. > Non-interned bignums and non-interned characters with codepoints > 255 will still behave differently under `eq?` and `eqv?`. > (eq? (expt 9 999) (expt 9 999)) #f > (eqv? (expt 9 999) (expt 9 999)) #t > (eq? (integer->char 1500) (integer->char 1500)) #f > (eqv? (integer->char 1500) (integer->char 1500)) #t > > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@racket-lang.org/msg04893.html > > - J -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
